The General and the Governor: Two Measures of American Desperation

[roughsatori]

I understand that the new tenor of DU seems to mock "ultra left" sources, but this is an interesting article from CounterPunch. I support Kucinich, and will vote for anyone but Bush* or Clark. I like Dean too, though he is a moderate he seems to have the widest spectrum of support among people who are regestered Dems.

snip//Decades of unremitting right wing assaults on every sphere of American life has so jerked the political landscape to the right, that instead of clamoring for sweeping or even revolutionary changes as in days long past, the main battle-cry coming from "the left" is "Anybody But Bush."

Long before the first primary, genuinely progressive platforms of Democratic candidates such as Al Sharpton and Dennis Kucinich have been deemed unrealistic and unworthy of consideration not only by the media, as can be expected, but by liberal activists and advocacy groups who often concede privately that they prefer a Kucinich, Sharpton or Ralph Nader.snip//



snip//Clark's decision to run as a Democrat is but a recent development, and his allegiance to the Party is questionable at best. Clark's first presidential vote was for Richard Nixon. He subsequently voted twice for Ronald Reagan and then for George Bush the Elder. Up until just two years ago, Clark was delivering speeches at GOP fundraisers in his home state of Arkansas, fuelling speculation he was considering a run for the Oval Office as a Republican. In a speech he gave at a fundraiser for the Pulaski County Republican Party, May 11, 2001, Clark praised Ronald Reagan's Cold War actions, Bush Sr.'s foreign policy, and singled out the current administration's hyper-unilateralist national security team: "We're going to be active, we're going to be forward engaged. But if you look around the world, there's a lot of work to be done. And I'm very glad we've got the great team in office: men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Paul O'Neill -- people I know very well -- our president, George W. Bush. We need them there, because we've got some tough challenges ahead in Europe."

Clark only declared himself a Democrat this past August. Why the decision to run as a Democrat? A hint can be found in a recent Newsweek article. After 9/11, Clark had expected the Bush Administration to enlist him in their "war on terror."
more//http://www.counterpunch.org/sharma10152003.html

[Skwmom]

1. Oh my God.

Clark may actually be able to govern and get something done because he's not a partisan hack.

In regards to Clark wanting to help on the war on terror - I remember after 9/11 that many people wanted to do whatever they could to help our country. I recall Dan Rather saying that he would be wherever Bush wanted him to be. Even (gasp) many people on this board.

When you're a military officer - especially at Clark's level you can't take sides - the man had to work for both Republican and Democratic administrations.

Jeffords is an ex-republican (unlike Clark who just voted for a couple of republicans). Are you going to impugn his integrity too?

[Say_What]

8. Straight out of the neo-conservative PNAC playbook

From the article:

"Anti-War" Ain't What it Used to Be

So why are liberals and progressives so star struck over Clark? One is the widespread perception that, as Michael Moore writes in his aforementioned letter, Clark "oppose{s} war." As the media watchdog group FAIR reveals in a review of statements made by Clark before, during and after the Iraq war, if Clark is "anti-war" then clearly the term has been gutted of any meaning.

* In an article published in The Times of London, April 10, Clark savors America's great "victory" over Iraq: "Liberation is at hand. Liberation--the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions. Already the scent of victory is in the air. Yet a bit more work and some careful reckoning need to be done before we take our triumph. . . . President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt."

* As the US and its client Israel are presently focusing the crosshairs on Syria and Iran, we have Clark writing in the same article: "But the operation in Iraq will also serve as a launching pad for further diplomatic overtures, pressures and even military actions against others in the region who have supported terrorism and garnered weapons of mass destruction. Don't look for stability as a Western goal. Governments in Syria and Iran will be put on notice--indeed, may have been already--that they are 'next' if they fail to comply with Washington's concerns."

Sounds straight out of the neo-conservative Project for a New American Century playbook.

[Sinistrous]

11. Please note the absence of a value judgement in the Clark quote.

He was analyzing the current situation in the Middle East, given that the Bush cabal is in power. And, as an analyst, he was correct. He did not say what was right or wrong, only what is. Alleging that this reflects his personal values is dishonest.

[Wickerman]

2. Wow

I was hoping for something new, but thisis the same old stuff that has been spun several different ways, yet this is spun the way it was being spun 5 weeks ago. Still don't know that he is my dog for the hunt, but this doesn't give me anything new.

[roughsatori]

3. sometimes the old is worth posting, thanks for the KICK

I thought this piece gave a good synopsis of my problems with Clark and some of my concerns for Dean. Not everyone is aware of these things as you are.

I know that to some the idea of an opposition party is "hack politics," and those people prefer a GOP-lite approach, I happen to disagree. I also think that if Clark wins the nomination it will be the end of whatever little opposition to corporate interests is left in the Democratic party.

[maha]

4. It's beyond belief

that people actually consider Sharpton a legitimate candidate. I'd like to see a demographic breakdown by age to see if anyone even mildly interested in a Sharpton candidacy is over 30. Or even 25. I say that because I can only assume you don't know much about Sharpton's history.

[mmonk]

5. You don't understand

realities on the ground in America.

[cap]

6. we should welcome all ex-Republicans who

have seen the light. Forgiveness and redemption are the order of the day.

[Say_What]

7. Excellent editorial--but like they elected GroperFurher by a landslide

we will probably end up with one of these Repuke Lites for pRes. for the One Party Two Names crowd.

From the article:

...And as the quagmire in Iraq thickens, Dean has boasted to the Washington Post that he has no intentions of bringing US troops home. Later Dean decided to flip-flop that stance, and stated in a New York Primary debate, "We need more troops. They're going to be foreign troops (in Iraq), not more American troops, as they should have been in the first place. Ours need to come home." So which is it? It seems according to Howard Dean that the Iraq disorder must go on at all costs. He is just not quite sure whose soldiers should do the occupying.

When drilled during that same debate about Bush's $87 billion Iraq package, Dean said that he would support it, and that "we have no choice...we have to support our troops." So do we support our troops by bringing them home, or by financing the occupation? He hasn't clarified.

...Dean's Sharon Love Affair

Dean's not-so-progressive stance on the Israel/Palestine conflict may be for a good (or not so good) reason. Dean's campaign fundraiser, Steven Grossman, is the ex-director of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the most influential Israeli lobbying force in the United States-ranked number four on Forbes top twenty-five most giving organizations in Washington. AIPAC's unwavering ideology includes defending Ariel Sharon at every mishap. Grossman himself spent many nights in the Clinton White House-and it's a certainty he'll be doing the same during a Dean tenure.

[goodhue]

9. The General and the Governor

Two Measures of American Desperation

by Sunil K. Sharma and Josh Frank

Dissident Voice
Posted: October 15, 2003

Enthusiastic support for front-running Democratic presidential contenders Wesley Clark and Howard Dean from liberals and some progressives reveals the dismal state of oppositional politics in America.

Decades of unremitting right wing assaults on every sphere of American life has so jerked the political landscape to the right, that instead of clamoring for sweeping or even revolutionary changes as in days long past, the main battle-cry coming from “the left” today is “Anybody But Bush!”

Long before the first primary, genuinely progressive platforms of Democratic candidates such as Al Sharpton and Dennis Kucinich have been deemed unrealistic and unworthy of consideration not only by the media, as can be expected, but by liberal activists and advocacy groups who often concede privately that they prefer a Kucinich, Sharpton or Ralph Nader.

As the US threatens to expand the Empire, with news of American soldiers killed in our illegal occupation of Iraq a daily occurrence -- a war many Americans are waking up to realize they were deceived into supporting under false pretenses, as the economy continues to go down the toilet (the costs of occupation pushing the decline), and as the wealthiest Americans are lavished with tax breaks while services benefiting the common good are eviscerated, it’s no wonder that Bush’s popularity ratings are at pre 9/11 levels. In this degraded climate, simply to say you’re an anti-war, anti-Bush candidate is to draw cheers from a battered opposition. And while they may be an improvement over Bush, have our standards so declined that we get weak in the knees when business-as-usual candidates like Clark and Dean summersault over a low hurdle?

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/

[maha]

10. In a word: Junk n/t